I think the ask was pretty clear: not to share confidential identification information with sketchy companies that are clearly sharing that information with everyone.
So you're saying Privacy should reinvent the wheel with an incredibly difficult, terrible-to-manage process, itself requiring an entire company worth of people and a huge support staff, laden with insane amounts of red tape, just to perform a small function of their business, instead of contracting out another company that specializes in doing this exact thing?
This seems like a larger security/privacy surface area than the latter approach.
OP's original point is that a company marketing themselves as a privacy tool are forcing customers to use a 3rd party for processing very personal identification data. That 3rd parties TOS, which binds customers of privacy.com, says they can and will share data with anyone they want for any reason. That's nearly the antithesis of the privacy the company is marketing itself on.
Privacy.com don't have to use Onfido, there are other options out there. There could be a myriad of reasons why they chose Onfido over the competition but the TOS bind the privacy.com users and they don't offer any alternative.
For a company leaning on "privacy" as their primary marketing tool, this is a double standard. It doesn't mean Privacy.com is a bad company with horrible people building a terrible product. They're just calling out a company for doing something seemingly opposite to their marketing, and saying that's why they personally aren't using the product.
You can disagree with OP but doesn't make their point wrong, invalid, or stupid.
No, i didn't say that, nor did the post. You keep making these absurd leaps. Privacy.com advertises themselves as being private. I expect them to be private. They're the ones who chose to hinge 100% of their marketing strategy, all the way down to their name and domain, on how very private they were.
They should just verify identities without selfies, like most payment providers. This trend of using selfies comes from shady crypto companies that were eager to pretend that their users have been verified, while also benefiting from the collected biometric data.
junon|3 years ago
This seems like a larger security/privacy surface area than the latter approach.
bluehatbrit|3 years ago
Privacy.com don't have to use Onfido, there are other options out there. There could be a myriad of reasons why they chose Onfido over the competition but the TOS bind the privacy.com users and they don't offer any alternative.
For a company leaning on "privacy" as their primary marketing tool, this is a double standard. It doesn't mean Privacy.com is a bad company with horrible people building a terrible product. They're just calling out a company for doing something seemingly opposite to their marketing, and saying that's why they personally aren't using the product.
You can disagree with OP but doesn't make their point wrong, invalid, or stupid.
markovbot|3 years ago
dessant|3 years ago